PJ Media’s Tom Harris recently noted that global warming advocates ought to heed that warning. Harris’ observation followed release of the latest report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC cried that fossil fuel energy use around the world must be reduced by as much as 70 percent by 2050 to avoid the apocalyptic “death, injury and disrupted livelihoods” caused by man-made atmospheric warming.
“This will require massive cuts in our use of coal, oil, and natural gas, the sources of 87 percent of world primary energy consumption,” Harris said. It will also require quadrupling the amount of energy generated from renewable and nuclear sources, plus widespread adoption of carbon capture and storage technology that doesn’t even exist yet.
So, to fight global warming will require the kind of spending it took to win World War II. The cost of energy would soar and leave people with little left to spend on their families. Crippling our economy. While leaving us with far less reliable electric power. Making brownouts and blackouts commonplace. Changing our lives greatly. And what will we get in return? Not a whole heck of a lot.
But the IPCC is crying wolf, according to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a voluntary international assembly of scientists and scholars brought together by the Heartland Institute, an American think tank. The NIPCC’s goal is to “present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming” independent of the political and economic interests that inevitably drive the analyses of governmental entities like the UN’s IPCC.
The NIPCC’s bottom line is that atmospheric warming comes and goes over time, with average temperatures actually declining over the past 17 years. As a result and contrary to those crying wolf on global warming, the earth’s ice cover “is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.” In fact, warmer temperatures and increased carbon content in the atmosphere can be beneficial to human beings, animals and plant life, “causing a great greening of the Earth,” according to the N-GIPCC.
Yes, warm is better. After all, no one bitched when global warming caused the glaciers to recede and end the ice ages. Because where the glaciers receded life took to that once frozen wasteland. And when the glaciers from the greatest ice age (ending about 635 million years ago) receded after nearly covering the planet in ice man wasn’t even using fire yet. In fact, the greater apes man evolved from didn’t arrive until about 15 million years ago. After the great glaciers receded back from the equator. So when the planet warmed and pushed back those glaciers it sure wasn’t man doing it. Which means if you believe in evolution you can’t believe in manmade global warming. Because the planet warms and cools. And has been doing so far longer than man has been around.
Tim Wirth, the former congressman and present vice chairman of the U.N. Foundation, said “even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” No matter that jobs, growth and comfort will be lost. Keep that in mind next time President Obama claims Americans must spend billions of tax dollars on “green” energy because global warming is “real.”
So these great costs are necessary even if they are wrong and manmade global warming is not settled science. Because crippling our economy and causing power brownouts and blackouts are a good thing. Why? One reason. It empowers government. To further intrude in how we live our lives. Which is the only thing battling manmade global warming does.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a new climate report. And it contained some of the most alarmist language yet used by the IPCC. So alarmist that an author removed his name from the report. Not because he disagrees with the underlying science. But because the “inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution.” And why was the language so alarmist? Because the fury of global warming was going to rain hellfire down upon us unless we acted immediately to curb our carbon emissions. For the level of our carbon emissions was growing ever more perilous. Taking us to the point of no return. Again. So immediate action was required. Hence the alarmist nature of the report.
Some of those in the alarmist camp even want to go as far as jailing climate change deniers. Because it is these people that are allowing the carbon polluters to pollute with abandon. Because people believe them and their science. That man isn’t causing global warming. It’s because of these people that America never signed the Kyoto Protocol. And because they have not implemented economic strangling carbon reduction policies (such as a carbon tax) the United States is one of the driving forces of manmade global warming. Because of their carbon emissions. Of course, the data doesn’t agree with this (see US CO2 Emissions Per Capita Are At Their Lowest Levels In 50 Years by Rob Wile posted 4/14/2014 on Business Insider).
And the following chart from AEI’s Mark Perry shows the U.S. has been making significant gains in carbon dioxide reduction: At about 17 tons per capita, we are at a level not seen in half a century. Perry writes:
CO2 emissions per capita in the US increased slightly last year, but were back to the same level as in 1963 (50 years ago), and 23% below the peak in the early 1970s, thanks to the boom in shale gas, which has displaced coal for electricity generation.
Back to what it was in 1963? You know what that means? We are at risk of another ice age. For on Earth Day in 1970 the climate scientists were warning us to store food to survive the coming ice age. Which was coming. For the planet had been cooling for some 20 years. And if those present trends continued it was death by cold. Just like they are saying now that if present trends continue it will be death by warm. Even though there is less carbon in the atmosphere than when they were predicting death by cold. Which is why there are a lot of climate change deniers.
Then again, perhaps man is causing global warming. By removing so much carbon from the atmosphere. For it was cooler when there was more carbon floating around up there. It would explain why that when a volcano throws up the same stuff a coal-fired power plant does it causes cooling. While the coal-fired power plant causes warming. Even though it’s pretty much the same stuff they’re putting into the atmosphere. Which is another reason why there are so many climate change deniers. For it appears whether carbon will cause warming or cooling depends on the day that carbon is having. For it appears carbon has attitude. And is moody. Which is the only way it can support such contradicting conclusions.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a new climate report. And based on that report we’re all doomed. Melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, floods, droughts, heat waves, cold waves, rain storms, blizzards, etc. In other words, weather. Weather the IPCC apparently believes is unusual. Caused by manmade global warming. Of course one wonders what they would say caused the glaciers to recede back from the equator to the poles long before man was even around to cause warming. Or why ice at the poles now is normal when they were once ice-free. Man wasn’t around polluting the planet back then. But you know what was around back then? The sun. Sunspot activity could have been causing the Pacific Decadal Oscillation back then as it is now. But one thing is for sure. Man couldn’t have melted the polar ice caps completely. For we’d have to discover fire before that could have happened.
An IPCC insider pulled his name from this report as he did not like the alarmist nature of it. And the fact that they were very selective with their climate modeling (see IPCC Insider Rejects Global-Warming Report by Alec Torres posted 4/3/2014 on National Review).
Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change, removed his name from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. While he considers much of the science sound and supports the underlying purpose of the IPCC, Tol says the United Nations agency’s inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution.
“In the SPM [Summary for Policymakers], and much more largely in the media, we see all these scare stories,” Tol tells National Review Online. “We’re all going to die, the four horsemen of the apocalypse . . . I felt uncomfortable with the direction [the IPCC report] was going…”
He took his name off of the final summary because he felt the IPCC did not properly account for human technological ingenuity and downplayed the potential benefits of global warming…
One prediction has it that crop yields will begin to fall dramatically, a statement “that is particularly not supported by the chapter itself,” Tol says. “What it completely forgets is technological progress and that crop yields have been going up for as long as we’ve looked at crop yields.”
Beyond misleading statements on agriculture, Tol says the IPCC report cites only the maximum estimate for how much it will cost to protect against sea-level rise associated with current climate-change predictions…
The report also stresses that global warming will cause more deaths due to heat stress, but ignores that global warming would reduce cold stress, which actually kills more people than heat stress each year.
Tol is far from a conspiracy theorist, but he nonetheless thinks the IPCC has built-in biases that keep it from adequately checking alarmism.
First, there is a self-selection bias: People who are most concerned about the impact of climate change are most likely to be represented on the panel. Next, most of the panelists are professors involved in similar academic departments, surrounded by like-minded people who reinforce each other’s views. Those views are welcomed by the civil servants who review the report, because their “departments, jobs, and careers depend on climate being a problem,” Tol says.
This is the problem with climate ‘science’. It is not very scientific. Science is the competition between theories. And the never-ending attempt to disprove previously held theories. This is what makes good science. For theories that hold up to every attempt at disproving them leave fewer and fewer theories that could possibly explain the data and experimental results. But when you exclude those opposing theorists from the process the ‘science’ is decidedly one-sided. And the ‘scientists’ are more cheerleader than scientist.
Some say it’s pointless for the United States to cut back on its carbon emissions. For whatever we do it won’t change what China and India are doing. And what are they doing? They’re building coal-fired power plants like there is no tomorrow. So it is kind of pointless what we do. For when it comes to global warming it won’t make a difference what one nation on the globe is doing. As the massive amounts of carbon emissions produced by China and India will enter the atmosphere surrounding the globe. Which will affect the United States. Even if we shrink our carbon footprint to nothing.
On Monday, 24 March 2014, Oslo Airport received a certificate showing that it is certified according to the internationally recognised ISO 14001 standard by DNV GL (Det Norske Veritas Germanischer Lloyd)…
Developed by ISO (the International Organization for Standardization), ISO 14001 is an international standard for environmental management based on two concepts: continuous improvement and regulatory compliance…
OSL has been focused on protecting the external environment ever since the airport was on the drawing boards. OSL is working systematically to reduce the environmental impact of its operations and also uses new technology and innovation to improve its performance. These measures include converting stored winter snow into cooling energy in the summer, the recovery of energy from wastewater and a pilot project to study the use of hydrogen as an energy source for vehicles at the airport. OSL has been certified since 2010 at the highest level of Airport Carbon Accreditation, a voluntary scheme to systematically reduce greenhouse gas emissions together with the players at the airport.
If there was any place that should get a pass on their carbon footprint it should be an airport. Because whatever they do will not offset the carbon emissions of the airplanes landing and taking off from that airport. And they emit a lot of carbon. So much that the Europeans wanted to extend their emissions trading scheme (ETS) to include airlines. Making them pay for the amount of carbon they emit when flying in EU airspace. Something the Chinese are very opposed to. As are other non-EU members. So much so that they delayed the inclusion of air travel into the ETS.
The biggest carbon emitters at any airport are the planes. Nothing even comes close. So why spend the money for a costly certification when it won’t make any difference? For the only way to make a real cut in carbon emissions at an airport is to get rid of the planes. Of course, if they did that then we wouldn’t need any ISO 14001 compliant airports, would we? But if we did this it wouldn’t stop China and India from building their coal-fired power plants. Proving how futile any efforts in combating manmade global warming are. It’s just money that could have been spent on feeding the hungry. Housing the homeless. Treating the sick. Or a myriad of other social spending that actually helps some people.
We are continually told that there is a consensus among climate ‘scientists’ that global warming is real. And that man is causing it. It’s settled science they say. But have you ever wondered how real scientists do things? The kind that don’t take a vote on whether something is settled science? Here is a look into the world of theoretical physicists. A group of people that theorize about things far bigger than mere climate (see Physicists say Big Bang theory revelation may be premature by Liat Clark posted 3/25/2014 on Wired).
Three theoretical physicists have penned a paper suggesting last week’s announcement that cosmic ripples from the Big Bang have been identified may have been premature.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announcement rocked the scientific community with the revelation the South Pole BICEP2 telescope had captured twisted patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) left behind after the Big Bang. The Smithsonian team believes these are a glimpse of the gravitational waves that were generated by cosmic inflation — an epic distortion of space-time just after the Big Bang when the universe expanded in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.
James Dent of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University and Harsh Mathur of the Case Western Reserve University have argued on the open access platform arxiv.org that the claim of definitive proof should not be made until all other possibilities have been ruled out.
Even after a paper has been published claiming definitive proof the subject is still open for debate. Now that’s science. And note that part about ruling out ALL OTHER possibilities. You never hear that kind of language from the climate ‘scientists’. Have they done that in their research? Or did they only look at selective data to prove what they want to prove? Did they rule out sunspot activity and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? A warming of the oceans that shifts the jet stream? Or did they ignore this because it contradicts what they want the data to show? There is a correlation between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and recent warming periods. Which would be one other possibility they need to rule out. But can’t. So they simply ignore it. Proving that ‘climate science’ is more politics than science. A tool for big-government leftists around the world to do what they’ve always wanted to do. To use the power of government to create a ruling class. Of a small group of people that has power over the masses. And who live quite comfortably while telling us what we must go without.
It’s nothing new. Since the dawn of time there have been those who seek power. To create a small ruling elite that lives better than everyone else. Much better. As every dictator in history has shown. North Korea still suffers from famine. But the ruling powers (currently Kim Jong-un) ate so well that they suffered from a little obesity. Kim Jong-un lives a privileged life. He has the best of everything while his people still go hungry. If that country were free, however, Kim Jong-un would live a less extravagant life. Perhaps even doing manual labor. For his only skill was having the right last name to become dictator.
This is why people want power. For even in the poorest countries those at the top live like kings. And those on the left, rabid anti-capitalists that they are, have no skill other than political skills. They want to live like kings. But they don’t want to work hard to earn it. So they use politics. Expand the size of government. To create as many high-paying posts that do nothing worthwhile as possible. So there is a place for these people. Where they can live better than everyone else without having earned it. This is why they want to nationalize health care. For that can create many levels of high-paying bureaucratic positions. And if they can get the economy of every country to bow down to their climate panels they can live better than kings. They can live as emperors. Over a vast empire they control. Living in the lap of luxury. Accumulating great wealth. And drunk on the power they can wield. Where they can get back at anyone that was ever better than them if they don’t bow down and kiss their fanny.
The earth’s climate is not a constant. It changes. And has been changing over the 4.54 billion years the planet’s been here. Going from one extreme to another over hundreds of thousands of years. Periods of time so great nothing living has ever experienced these changes. For example, no one ever lived to see the polar regions free of ice and glaciers extending down from the polar ice caps to near the equator. The time between these two climate extremes was far too great for any living thing to observe. But that’s how climate changes. Over vast amounts of time. We may experience hot days and cold days. Hot summers and cold winters. But we just won’t experience climate change. We are likely to die in the climate we were born in. As it has been throughout time.
The last great climatic change of the planet was the Little Ice Age from approximately 1350 to 1850. That’s a period of 500 years. Or 250 years of cooling and 250 years of warming. Approximately. And unless you remained alive for some 3 or 4 generations of your family tree you didn’t experience any climate change. You just accepted the climate you were living in as being normal. And got on with life. Which makes all these climate doomsayers seem silly and needlessly frightened. For they will be long dead and buried before there is any real climate change. Yet they wring their hands with worry whenever something happens in a very short period of time. As if that small change in that minute period of time means anything. Like melting glaciers in Greenland (see Study: Ice Sheet Destabilizing, Threatening Greater Sea-Level Rise by Alan Neuhauser posted 3/16/2014 on US News and World Report).
A new region of a massive ice sheet in Greenland has become unstable, threatening to raise global sea levels beyond previous estimates, an international team of scientists has found.
The ice sheet, known simply as the Greenland Ice Sheet, is a roughly 660,000-square mile swath of ice that covers 80 percent of the country. The second-largest ice sheet in the world behind the Antarctic Ice Sheet, it’s especially vulnerable to global warming, yet its northeast portion had remained largely unaffected by rising temperatures…
From April 2003 to April 2012, the northeast portion lost about 10 billion tons of ice per year, according to GPS data. It’s a finding that researcher Shfaqat Abbas Khan called “very surprising…”
Researchers believe that melting of the ice sheet has been one of the largest factors in sea-level rise, contributing 0.5 millimeters to the total of 3.2 millimeters of sea rise per year.
Once upon a time ice didn’t cover 80% of Greenland and the land in Greenland was actually green. There was life. Warm weather. And warm soil. Where things grew. Allowing other things to live. Then the cold weather came. A period of global cooling. An ice age. And killed it all. But now it may be spring in Greenland once again. Allowing life to propagate in new soil revealed beneath receding glaciers. Perhaps even providing farmland. And more opportunity for Greenlanders. Of course the current generation of Greenlanders will never see this. But their great-great-great-great-grandchildren might. And they’ll probably like it. Because we really know how everyone feels about ice and snow. Based on the destination of everyone going on winter or spring break at least. They go where it’s warm. Because warm is better.
What is science? Do scientists gather and vote on theories? And do those theories become settled science? Or is it something more like this (see Japanese Institute Weighs Retracting Stem-Cell Studies by Alexander Martin and Gautam Naik posted 3/10/2014 on The Wall Street Journal)?
The co-author, Teruhiko Wakayama of Yamanashi University in Japan, called Monday for the retraction of the findings, published in late January in a pair of papers in the journal Nature.
The papers drew international attention because they held out a safer, easier and more ethical technique for creating master stem cells. These cells, which can be turned into all other body tissues, promise one day to transform the treatment of various ailments, from heart disease to Alzheimer’s.
But shortly after the papers appeared, Japan’s Riken Center for Developmental Biology, where the work took place, began to investigate alleged irregularities in images used in the papers. Separately, many labs said they couldn’t replicate the results…
Like several other researchers, Dr. Wakayama said he hasn’t yet been able to reproduce the results. “There is no value in it if the technique cannot be replicated,” he said.
Science is more like this. It’s aggressive and relentless. Scientists work hard to replicate previous results. And they work hard to disprove past theories. The key to science, then, is never accepting anything as settled. No. Everything is questioned. Forever. That’s real science. Unlike climate science. Where people apparently use voting in lieu of vigorous experimentation to replicate results or disprove past theories. So anyone stating that manmade global warming is settled science is not a scientist. Or a truthful person.
All the people who claim manmade global warming is settled science are either people who want to greatly expand the power of government over the economy. Or they are just grossly ignorant. These ignorant people, of course, help those who want to greatly expand the power of government over the economy. Which is why we should not listen to politicians when it comes to science. Or ignoramuses. For once upon a time the polar icecaps weren’t frozen. And at another time glaciers reached down from the poles towards the equator. Long before man ever put any carbon into the atmosphere. Climate changes. And it has changed a lot more drastically before man appeared on the scene. So anyone claiming man is causing this is either a liar. Or an ignoramus.
Green energy investments are a horrible investment. The only reason why anyone is building green energy projects is because of taxpayer subsidies. If you take away the subsidies the green energy industry is just going to stop building these bad energy projects. Which is what’s happening now (see Here Are The 10 Best States For Clean Energy Jobs In 2013 by Aaron Tilley posted 3/12/2014 on Forbes).
Clean energy investments had it rough in 2013, and US job growth in that sector is having a bit of trouble too.
That’s at least according to evidence in a new report out today from Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2),an environmental advocacy organization for businesses. While the clean energy industry made plans to add an additional 78,000 new jobs at 260 projects in 2013, that’s a 30% dip from the 110,000 job announcements in the previous year. (E2 has only been tracking clean energy job growth for the past two years…)
The biggest reason for the 30% drop in job growth over last year is due to ongoing regulatory uncertainty around federal tax credits and state renewable energy mandates, says E2 communications director Bob Keefe. Congress let the generous tax credits the wind energy industry had enjoyed for more than two decades expire in December–and it looks unlikely they’ll be reinstated in 2014. And four major energy efficiency tax credits and initiatives expired at the end of last year too. On top of that, several states, including North Carolina and Kansas, have attempted to roll back mandates on renewable energy requirements for their utility grids.
If anyone bemoans a cut in government spending in some government program don’t blame the Republicans. Blame the Democrats. And their green energy cronies. The Democrats are taking money away from other programs to pay for these white elephants just so they and their crony friends can get rich.
These projects cost a fortune to build. And the return on investment just isn’t there. Which is why it takes hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies to build them. That’s a lot of money to spend when these projects accomplish nothing. They don’t allow us to shut down one coal-fired power plant. Because we’ll need those coal-fired power plants to provide electric power when the sun doesn’t shine and when the wind doesn’t blow. And they take up so much real estate that they’re displacing wildlife from their natural habitat. While wind farms are hacking American Bald Eagles and other birds to death. So they’re not helping the environment.
And they’re not improving the reliability of our electric power. Or lowering the cost. Every time they shut down a coal-fired power plant they increase our electric bills. And increase the brownouts and blackouts we have to endure when we have to rely on less reliable power that costs more (we have to pay more for our electric power to pay for those subsidies) than the more reliable power. This is our government when Democrats are in power. And just imagine how they will run our health care. Who do you think they’ll make rich? And how much will they increase our health care costs? While giving us an inferior health care system? It’s going to happen. Because that’s what happens when Democrats are in power.
There is an oft used expression that goes something like this. In the long run we’ll all be dead. So the long-term isn’t as important as the short-term. Politicians live their lives by this. As they irresponsibly borrow and spend to win votes. Who don’t worry about the long-term damage they’re doing to the country. Because in the long run they’ll be dead. But they don’t have that same sentiment when it comes to global warming. Where they say we must act now before it’s too late. And we give our children a future devastated by global warming. Giving them a future devastated by their reckless and irresponsible financial policies they’re okay with. But not a future ruined by global warming. Even though the financial devastation will probably come first. Or this (see 400-kg meteor hits the moon by QMI Agency posted 2/24/2014 on the Toronto Sun).
On Sept. 11, 2013, a 400-kg rock hurtling through space at 61,000 km/h in the Mare Nubium smashed into the surface of the moon, releasing as much energy as 15 tonnes of TNT.
The meteor was 10 times bigger than the last record-holder, a 40-kg rock NASA observed hitting the moon March 17, 2013.
They say this rock was as big as a small car. We better hope that nothing bigger than this hits the moon. For if something does it could break the moon apart. Disrupting tidal currents on earth. And sending a chunk of the moon much larger than a small car into Earth. Doing more damage than we can even imagine. A real concern. For a current hypothesis for the formation of the moon is from something as large as Mars smashing into Earth. So there is a lot of space crap zinging around out there. And we would probably be better served in trying to think of a way to defend against getting crushed to death by a rock from outer space than worrying about global warming. For the odds are probably greater for getting hit by a piece of space crap than dying from global warming.
Hydrogen is very flammable. It’s why we use helium in our blimps. Because using hydrogen is just too dangerous. As the Hindenburg disaster has shown us.
So hydrogen is a pretty dangerous thing to be messing with. Unlike gasoline. Which is pretty safe and stable in the liquid form. You could even put out a cigarette in a puddle of gasoline. It’s dangerous doing so. And you shouldn’t try it. But the most dangerous thing about gasoline is its vapor. Ignite that and there will be an explosion. Which is what happens inside our internal combustion engines. Where our cars first aerosolizes the gasoline, mixes it with air, compresses it and then ignites it. Of course that explosion is deep within our engines. Where it can’t harm us. Still, it isn’t advised to smoke while refueling. Because there are gas vapors typically where there is gas. And you don’t want you car exploding like the Hindenburg.
Fuel cells use hydrogen to make electric power. All you have to do is stop at your hydrogen fueling station and fill up your hydrogen tanks. Just don’t smoke while doing this. Because hydrogen in its natural state is an explosive gas. This danger aside the hydrogen fuel cell is about to give the all-electric car a run for its money. And last’s night meal may be providing the hydrogen (see POO-power comes to California: Orange County residents to trial SUVs fuelled by human waste by Mark Prigg posted 2/25/2014 on the Daily Mail).
The fuel-cell powered Tucson can drive for 50 miles per kilogram of hydrogen, and its two tanks hold about 5.64 kilograms (12.4 pounds).
Costs of compressed gas in California range from about $5 to $10 per kilogram, depending on the facility, and it takes around three minutes to fill the tank.
Hyundai says it hopes the technology will become popular – and will take on the electric car as the eco-vehicle of choice.
‘Hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles represent the next generation of zero-emission vehicle technology, so we’re thrilled to be a leader in offering the mass-produced, federally certified Tucson Fuel Cell to retail customers,’ said John Krafcik of Hyundai Motor America.
‘The superior range and fast-fill refueling speed of our Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle contrast with the lower range and slow-charge characteristics of competing battery electric vehicles.
‘We think fuel cell technology will increase the adoption rate of zero-emission vehicles, and we’ll all share the environmental benefits.’
If you crunch the numbers and compare it to a gasoline-powered Ford Taurus the numbers aren’t so good. A Ford Taurus gets 29 miles per gallon on the highway. And has an 18 gallon gas tank. Which means one tank of gas will take you 522 miles on the highway. At $3 per gallon for gas that one tank of gas will cost you $54. By comparison the fuel cell gives you only 282 miles on a full tank. And costs between $28.20 and $56.40 for a full tank. Dividing cost per mile that comes to somewhere between $0.10 and $0.20 per mile. While the gasoline-powered Ford Taurus costs about $0.10 per mile.
So at best the fuel cell will have a fuel cost equal to the gasoline-powered engine. But it only has about 54% the range on a full tank. Meaning you’ll have to stop about twice as often to fuel up with the fuel cell. And good luck not blowing yourself up playing with hydrogen at the fuel pump. That is if you can even find hydrogen fueling stations along your drive. The only real good thing you can say about a fuel cell when comparing it to a gasoline-powered car is at least it’s not as bad as an all-electric car. And those zero-emissions? Sorry, that’s not exactly true. The hydrogen may be zero-emissions but making the hydrogen isn’t.
First, sewage is separated into water and biosolids.
The waste water is cleaned, filtered and treated for reuse, while solid waste is piped into airless tanks filled with microbes.
A byproduct of their digestion is a gas that’s 60 percent methane and about 40 percent carbon dioxide, which is burned at the plant for power generation.
However, some is filtered and piped into a unique, stationary ‘tri-generation’ fuel-cell device, designed by the Irvine team, that produces electricity, heat and hydrogen.
The hydrogen gas is then piped several hundred feet to the public pump where fuel-cell autos are refueled daily.
Almost half of the source gas is carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide has carbon in it. This is the same gas they want to shut down coal-fired power plants for producing. Oh, and methane? That’s a greenhouse gas. This is the gas coming out of the butts of cows and pigs that some are saying are warming the planet. And when you burn methane guess what you get? Water and carbon dioxide. More manmade carbon emissions. That’s a lot of global warming they’re creating in the effort to prevent global warming.
This is one thing fuel cells share with all-electric cars. They may be emission free. But the chemistry to make them emission-free isn’t. We’re still putting carbon into the atmosphere. We’re just doing it in different places. And if we are wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier just to keep using gasoline?